The Influence of Preoperative Antibiotics on Success of Endosseous Implants Up to and Including Stage II Surgery: A Study of 2,641 Implants

Dent, C. Daniel; Olson, John W.; Farish, Sam E.; Bellome, J; Casino, Anthony J.; Morris, Harold F.; Ochi, Shigeru

doi:10.1016/s0278-2391(16)31193-4

Cited by 137 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In implant surgery, streptococci, anaerobic Gram-positive cocci, and anaerobic Gram-negative rods are the pathogens most likely to cause post-operative wound-healing problems (for overview, see Dent et al, 1997;Beikler and Flemmig, 2001). Thus, the antibiotic selected for prophylaxis should be bactericidal and of low toxicity, e.g., penicillin or amoxicillin (Garg, 1992;Sbordone et al, 1995).…”

Section: (C) Special Considerations For Implant Therapy In Patients Wmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implants in the Medically Compromised Patient

Beikler

Flemmig

2003

Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental clinicians are confronted with an increasing number of medically compromised patients who require implant surgery for their oral rehabilitation. However, there are few guidelines on dental implant therapy in this patient category, so that numerous issues regarding pre-and post-operative management remain unclear to the dental clinician. Therefore, the aim of the present review is to offer a critical evaluation of the literature and to provide the clinician with scientifically based data for implant therapy in the medically compromised patient. This review presents the current knowledge regarding the influence of the most common systemic and local diseases on the outcome of dental implant therapy, e.g., abnormalities in bone metabolism, diabetes mellitus, xerostomia, and ectodermal dysplasias. Specific pathophysiologic aspects of the above-mentioned diseases as well as their potential implications for implant success are critically appraised. In line with these implications, guidelines for pre-and post-operative management that may assist in the successful implant-supported rehabilitation of this patient category are proposed.

show abstract

Section: (C) Special Considerations For Implant Therapy In Patients Wmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implants in the Medically Compromised Patient

Beikler

Flemmig

2003

Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 The use of antibiotic prophylactic prior to surgery has been proposed to prevent this complication. For example, Dent et al (1997) published the potential benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis prior to implant surgery. 2 Their study showed lower 6-month post-insertion failure rates, of 1.5% with antibiotic prophylaxis as compare to 4% when none was given (i.e, absolute reduction in implant failures of 2.5%) .…”

Section: Commentarymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Dent et al (1997) published the potential benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis prior to implant surgery. 2 Their study showed lower 6-month post-insertion failure rates, of 1.5% with antibiotic prophylaxis as compare to 4% when none was given (i.e, absolute reduction in implant failures of 2.5%) . The same group published a 3-year followup and reported an even larger absolute reduction in implant failures of 5.5%.…”

Section: Commentarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Do preoperative antibiotics prevent dental implant complications?

Balevi

2008

Evid Based Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(gastrointestinal, hypersensitivity, etc.). Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently assessed the quality and extracted relevant data from included studies. The estimated effect of the intervention was expressed as a risk ratio together with its 95% confidence interval (CI). Numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) were calculated from numbers of patients affected by implant failures. Meta-analysis was done only if there were studies with similar comparisons that reported the same outcome measure. Significance of any discrepancies between studies was assessed by means of the Cochran's test for heterogeneity and the I2 statistic. Results Only two RCT met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of these two trials showed a statistically significantly higher number of patients experiencing implant failures in the group not receiving antibiotics (relative risk, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06-0.86). The NNT to prevent one patient having an implant failure is 25 (95%CI, 13-100), based on a patient implant failure rate of 6% in people not receiving antibiotics. The following outcomes were not statistically significantly linked with implant

show abstract

“…14 The screw design facilitates initial stability, provides adequate implant-tobone contact, and distributes the loading stresses to the adjacent supporting bone. 15 Numerous confounding factors, such as bone density, 16 experience of the surgeon, 17 antibiotic use, 18 and implant design 19 may also influence clinical outcomes.…”

Section: Clinical Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%